Oral minoxidil use in androgenetic alopecia and telogen effluvium

While current studies have supported oral minoxidil as a novel, adjunctive therapy in non-scarring forms of alopecia, there continues to be limited data on oral minoxidil for these conditions. To assess oral minoxidil use in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia and telogen effluvium, a multi-cente...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Archives of dermatological research 2023-03, Vol.315 (2), p.201-205
Main Authors: Feaster, Brittany, Onamusi, Toluwalashe, Cooley, Jerry E., McMichael, Amy J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Alopecia
Alopecia - drug therapy
Alopecia Areata - drug therapy
Antihypertensives
Baldness
Dermatology
Endocrine disorders
Female
Humans
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Minoxidil
Minoxidil - adverse effects
Oral administration
Original Paper
Patients
Retrospective Studies
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:While current studies have supported oral minoxidil as a novel, adjunctive therapy in non-scarring forms of alopecia, there continues to be limited data on oral minoxidil for these conditions. To assess oral minoxidil use in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia and telogen effluvium, a multi-center, retrospective analysis was conducted in 105 adult patients treated for androgenetic alopecia and/or telogen effluvium with oral minoxidil (dose range 0.625–2.5 mg) once daily for ≥ 52 weeks, case matched by age (± 5 years) and gender with 105 controls with androgenetic alopecia and/or telogen effluvium who were not treated with oral minoxidil. 80 women (76.2%) with a mean age of 57.5 ± 13.56 (range 24–80) and 25 men (23.8%) with a mean age of 40.4 ± 13.79 (range 19–63) were included. Efficacy was evaluated based on provider assessment of clinical response and clinical photographic evaluation using a 3-point scale (worsening, stabilization, and improvement). 52.4% of patients demonstrated clinical improvement and 42.9% demonstrated stabilization. There was a significant difference in clinical response between the patient and control group, p  
ISSN:1432-069X
0340-3696
1432-069X
DOI:10.1007/s00403-022-02331-5